When to initiate immunotherapy in children with allergic disease? Lessons from the paediatric studies

Specific allergen immunotherapy for the treatment of atopic eczema

BACKGROUND

Specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT) is a treatment that may improve disease severity in people with atopic eczema (AE) by inducing immune tolerance to the relevant allergen. A high quality systematic review has not previously assessed the efficacy and safety of this treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT), including subcutaneous, sublingual, intradermal, and oral routes, compared with placebo or a standard treatment in people with atopic eczema.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to July 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2015), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), LILACS (from 1982), Web of Science™ (from 2005), the Global Resource of EczemA Trials (GREAT database), and five trials databases. We searched abstracts from recent European and North American allergy meetings and checked the references of included studies and review articles for further references to relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of specific allergen immunotherapy that used standardised allergen extracts in people with AE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction (including adverse effects), assessment of risk of bias, and analyses. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 12 RCTs for inclusion in this review; the total number of participants was 733. The interventions included SIT in children and adults allergic to either house dust mite (10 trials), grass pollen, or other inhalant allergens (two trials). They were administered subcutaneously (six trials), sublingually (four trials), orally, or intradermally (two trials). Overall, the risk of bias was moderate, with high loss to follow up and lack of blinding as the main methodological concern.Our primary outcomes were 'Participant- or parent-reported global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment'; 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures'; and 'Adverse events, such as acute episodes of asthma or anaphylaxis'. SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) is a means of measuring the effect of atopic dermatitis by area (A); intensity (B); and subjective measures (C), such as itch and sleeplessness, which we used.For 'Participant- or parent-reported global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment', one trial (20 participants) found improvement in 7/9 participants (78%) treated with the SIT compared with 3/11 (27%) treated with the placebo (risk ratio (RR) 2.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 7.96; P = 0.04). Another study (24 participants) found no difference: global disease severity improved in 8/13 participants (62%) treated with the SIT compared with 9/11 (81%) treated with the placebo (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.26; P = 0.38). We did not perform meta-analysis because of high heterogeneity between these two studies. The quality of the evidence was low.For 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures', two trials (184 participants) did not find that the SIT improved SCORAD part C (mean difference (MD) -0.74, 95% CI -1.98 to 0.50) or sleep disturbance (MD -0.49, 95% CI -1.03 to 0.06) more than placebo. For SCORAD part C itch severity, these two trials (184 participants) did not find that the SIT improved itch (MD -0.24, 95% CI -1.00 to 0.52). One other non-blinded study (60 participants) found that the SIT reduced itch compared with no treatment (MD -4.20, 95% CI -3.69 to -4.71) and reduced the participants' overall symptoms (P < 0.01), but we could not pool these three studies due to high heterogeneity. The quality of the evidence was very low.Seven trials reported systemic adverse reactions: 18/282 participants (6.4%) treated with the SIT had a systemic reaction compared with 15/210 (7.1%) with no treatment (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.49; the quality of the evidence was moderate). The same seven trials reported local adverse reactions: 90/280 participants (32.1%) treated with the SIT had a local reaction compared with 44/204 (21.6%) in the no treatment group (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.81). As these had the same study limitations, we deemed the quality of the evidence to also be moderate.Of our secondary outcomes, there was a significant improvement in 'Investigator- or physician-rated global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment' (six trials, 262 participants; RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.88). None of the studies reported our secondary outcome 'Parent- or participant-rated eczema severity assessed using a published scale', but two studies (n = 184), which have been mentioned above, used SCORAD part C, which we included as our primary outcome 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures'.Our findings were generally inconclusive because of the small number of studies. We were unable to determine by subgroup analyses a particular type of allergen or a particular age or level of disease severity where allergen immunotherapy was more successful. We were also unable to determine whether sublingual immunotherapy was associated with more local adverse reactions compared with subcutaneous immunotherapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the quality of the evidence was low. The low quality was mainly due to the differing results between studies, lack of blinding in some studies, and relatively few studies reporting participant-centred outcome measures. We found limited evidence that SIT may be an effective treatment for people with AE. The treatments used in these trials were not associated with an increased risk of local or systemic reactions. Future studies should use high quality allergen formulations with a proven track record in other allergic conditions and should include participant-reported outcome measures.

Immunological approaches for tolerance induction in allergy

Allergy is the consequence of an inappropriate inflammatory immune response generated against harmless environmental antigens. In allergic disorders such as asthma and rhinitis, the Th2 mediated phenotype is a result of loss of peripheral tolerance mechanisms. In cases such as these, approaches such as immunotherapy attempt to treat the underlying cause of allergic disease by restoring tolerance. Immunotherapy initiates many complex mechanisms within the immune system that result in initiation of innate immunity, activation of both cellular and humoral B cell immunity, as well as triggering T regulatory subsets which are major players in the establishment of peripheral tolerance. Though studies clearly demonstrate immunotherapy to be efficacious, research to improve this treatment is ongoing. Investigation of allergenicity versus immunogenicity, native versus modified allergens, and the use of adjuvant and modality of dosing are all current strategies for immunotherapy advancement that will be reviewed in this article.

Sublingual immunotherapy in children with allergic rhinitis: quality of systematic reviews

Systematic reviews have gained popularity as a way to combine the increasing amount of research information. This study assessed the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for allergic rhinitis in children, published since 2000. Eligible reviews were identified by searching Medline/Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, from 2000 through 2008. Methodological quality was assessed using the assessment of multiple systematic reviews instrument. Ten systematic reviews were included, one of which was published in the Cochrane Library. Eight reviews gave some details about the search strategy. None of the reviews included measures to avoid selection bias. In 60% of the reviews, the methodological quality of the included studies was (partly) assessed. Four reviews pooled the results of individual studies, neglecting clinical heterogeneity. Three of the 10 reviews provided information about sources of funding or grants from industry. Of the 10 reviews, the six reviews with the highest overall score scored 5-8 points, indicating moderate quality. Systematic reviews are useful to evaluate the efficacy of SLIT in children. Although more reviews have become available, the methodological quality could be improved. SLIT for children could be promising, but methodological flaws in the reviews and individual studies are too serious to draw definite conclusions.

An immunological overview of allergen specific immunotherapy -- subcutaneous and sublingual routes

Allergen-specific immunotherapy remains the most likely effective treatment modality for allergic disorders by targeting the underlying immune mechanisms and possibly causing modifications in the disease course, as well as treating the symptoms. Treatment and compliance experiences been gained over nearly a century in injection-type allergen-specific immunotherapy have motivated the development of newer, alternative routes. Adverse events and safety concerns, efficacy and ease of application seem to be the stimulating factors for the development of a sublingual form of this treatment modality, wherein the principal factor is the capture of the antigen (allergen) by dendritic cells, in the location where oral tolerance arises. Due to the presence of high numbers of tolerogenic dendritic cell subsets in this region, programming of the immune system towards a regulatory state with unresponsiveness to specific allergens occurs. Induction of peripheral tolerance through the generation of regulatory T cells is the key event, with several functional modulations in the allergic immune response. With an increase in understanding of the mechanism of regulatory pathways, promising progresses in the field of allergen-specific immunotherapy will ensue and may provide new options for the treatment of allergic disorders.